Did the Jews kill Jesus? Maybe, say the Gospels and Gibson, while reality says NO

 

By Percy Nadeau

 

(Percy Nadeau is standing in for Tomas de los Santos , who is on holiday this month.)

 

Mel Gibson's movie has rekindled the controversy over the actual involvement of the Jews in the slaying of Jesus. In Mel's movie the Jews were given credit, but it was clearly the Romans doing the actual deed.The Gospels, on the other hand, discuss both a Jewish judgment of Jesus where he was sentenced to death (Matt 26:65-66; Mk 14:64), as well as a Roman judgment where Jesus was found to be "not guilty" of any crime worthy of the death penalty (Jn 18:38). What role did the Jews really have in the death of Jesus?

The answer is: the Jews had nothing to do with it, and the story that has them involved (to whatever extent) is entirely made up.

To see why this is so, we must consider the Jews at the time of Jesus -- during the first few decades of the first century. Although a full study is beyond the scope of this article, there are some basic points we can cover.

According to the Gospels, Jesus had four trials: before Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, and Herod (only Luke talks of Herod, 23:7). Let's take a closer look at the trail before Caiaphas, the Jewish High priest. The gospels tell us that Jesus was taken before the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, "where the scribes and the elders were assembled" (Matt 26:57: Mk 14:53; Lk 22:54) "and they . . . brought him into the high priest's house." Many Christian commentators tell us that the elders thus assembled were the Sanhedrin, which functioned as the supreme court of the Jewish Nation. Think of the Sanhedrin as the Jewish senate, or council of elders. It consisted of 71 members, with the high priest as presiding officer.

Prior to the Roman occupation the Sanhedrin decided capital cases and imposed the death penalty according to Jewish law. In the days of Pontius Pilate, however, when the Romans occupied Israel , the Sanhedrin denied itself the authority to impose the death penalty. This is a historical fact that the gospel writers -- except for John -- apparently did not know. In the days of Jesus, there was no Jewish death penalty.

As it happened, while the Romans occupied Israel, the rabbis and members of the Sanhedrin resolved not to pass capital sentence on any son of Abraham because they considered that doing so while Israel was surrounded by enemies and trampled upon by the Roman legions would be an insult to the ancient blood of the patriarchs. (Talmud, Jerusalem , Sanhedrin, fol. 24, recto). In any case, the Sanhedrin was not free to do whatever it wanted and whenever it chose. In fact, the Sanhedrin followed very strict rules and procedures much as our courts do today.

The Sanhedrin, for example, met only on weekdays between the morning and evening sacrifice -- that is, from 9 a .m. to 4 p.m., and they never met on Sabbaths, or religious holidays. This was especially true of the Passover, which was one of the most important feasts in the Jewish sacred calendar. Additionally, the Sanhedrin never met at night because they wanted all their judgments to be in the "light of the day."

Another important rule they kept was that an interval of 24 hours had to elapse between the conclusion of testimony and the rendering of a verdict. This 24-hour period was required in order to secure a more careful deliberation, and was strictly observed.

In a case involving the death penalty, the Sanhedrin had a special meeting place. It was called the Chamber of Hewn Stone, which was part of the temple in Jerusalem . Only in that chamber, also called the "Gazith," could the Sanhedrin pronounce the penalty of death (Talmud, Sanhedrin, Chap.14). Mind you, this was when the Sanhedrin still had the authority to exact the death penalty. As already mentioned, during the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin no longer exercised authority over capital cases. Indeed, John recognizes this. See Jn 18:31.

Now let's go back and look at what the Gospels and Gibson would have us believe. According to them, Jesus was put to trial before the Sanhedrin on a major feast day and high Sabbath, namely, the Passover. Then, they would have us believe that Jesus was tried at night in violation of Jewish law. On top of that, they have the Sanhedrin render the verdict in the same sitting forgetting, I suppose, that other serious Jewish law that required a 24-hour interval between the taking of testimony and rendering of the verdict.

Moreover, the gospels and Gibson would have us believe that Caiaphas, the high priest of the Sanhedrin, at least in the case of Jesus, adjudicated a capital case in the comfort of his own home instead of in the hall of hewn stone -- the so called Gazith. It appears that the Gospel writers (and Gibson) did not realize that any sentence pronounced outside the Gazith was null and void if it were to happen at all. It would be like our Supreme Court convening in Chief Justice Reinquest's back yard during a Sunday barbeque. Not only does this not happen, but the very thought of it is ridiculous.

One might then ask whether the Jews, in their eagerness to nail Jesus, dispensed with their laws and procedures in order to get the job done. Maybe, in the special case of Jesus, the 71-member Sanhedrin conspired to chuck the rules out the window and proceed in flagrante delicto. Or, do these inaccuracies regarding the accounts of Jesus' trials when compared to the requirements of Jewish law render the accounts as works of fraud or fiction?

To believe that the Sanhedrin went on a collective frolic of its own on that fateful Passover is to indulge a daft brain. Elsewhere in the Gospels we are told of how strictly the Jews observed their laws (see for example Matt ch. 15, or Mk ch 2). Those passages are even written in a manner that ridicules such strict adherence to the letter of the law. With the trial of Jesus before the Jewish High Priest, however, we are asked to believe that these same people who were so strict in obeying the law decided to undergo a national lapse in character and dispense with the law altogether -- something they have not done for over three millennia, with or without a homeland. Maybe some of them might have been willing to do that, but all of them? All 71 elders and the Jewish public at large in such a widespread conspiracy? Is this a biblical grassy knoll?

This is exactly what many would claim: that the Jews, in their zeal to kill Jesus, lost their collective minds, lost touch with their national character, and in violation of their entire legal system, committed murder as a body politic -- and this for the sake of a man whom they did not even recognize as their messiah. I can already hear Christians saying, That's right, that's exactly what they did! Admittedly, the appeal of the drama is enhanced by the notion of this runaway nation bent on deicide. For many that is as far as any critical analysis goes. For others, including myself, the source must be considered.

We get most of our information about the Jews at the time of Jesus from Josephus and from rabbinical literature. Josephus told it like he saw it, and the rabbis describe how their system of laws worked. In either case, there is no mention of any Jesus. The only place there is any mention of Jesus is in the gospels. No one else, neither Josephus, the rabbis, nor the 20 or more other historians working in Jerusalem at the time, say anything about him. It is the gospel writers -- and only them -- who tell us of this immortal god-man, and then only 30 years, at the earliest, after the alleged facts, or as much as a hundred years later -- and in a different part of the world. Who were the gospel writers? They were men on a mission to convince readers of their theological agenda. And what clever writers they were: they have made a mint for Mel Gibson -- the Passion is the largest grossing movie in the history of the entire film world.